Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Such an easy question is unbecoming

LondonJohn said:
So, pilot padron, try answering this simple question: why wasn't this alleged statement from Sollecito's interrogation on the 5th November ever apparently introduced in the first trial of Knox and Sollecito before Massei's court? Can you do that?
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.Oh dear.
Click to expand...

Sure I can:

1) Not being able to read minds as others here seem regularly able to do and then to dogmatically argue based on the results thereof, read this:

a) If the Defense (and Prosecution) was as inept and incompetent as you and others endlessly argue, you have answered your own question frequently in previous arguments, and additional requests from you now are superfluous.
b) Since the decision was unanimous, you know, the importance you attach to the simple question in your argument is in itself questionable,making your request irrelevant, redundant and unworthy of belaboring even here.
Especially again, in light of *your own* and others here repeated charges of Defense incompetency as the ever so obvious answer.

2) Certainly you and others are aware that a multitude of perpetrators are presently in prison primarily as a result of the circumstantial but ever so significant evidence of this undeniable inability to answer and *actual* proffering of outright easily refuted lies in replying to the 'Where were you' game changer.

Finally, the goalposts were embedded in the concrete foundation point of my post that *actual* contradictory answers were indeed very harmful to the Defense of the two perpetrators subsequently found unanimously to be guilty in a Court of Law.
I choose to resist movement now to your one ancillary playing field of the *one* contradiction you choose to now characteristically employ as a futile face saving argument to carry forward for 50,001
 
Last edited:
Ms. Popovic's two visits

bolint said:
Katody:
"Which claims indicate that Amanda was not with Raffaele when he was starting a movie at 21:26?"

Raffaele's Nov 5 claim that they parted at about 21:00 and he went home alone.
Click to expand...
Bolint,

Your statement above suggests that when A and R parted, they were not as his place. A later comment of yours suggested that they were at his place when Ms. Popovic arrived. That is why I was unsure of what you meant. There is an additional problem with Raffaele's statement. When he spoke of Meredith's departure, it sounded as if he and Amanda stayed at her flat before going out. That does not square with Ms. Popovic's earlier visit. I cannot see the rationale for choosing to accept parts of Raffaele's statement, when we know that other parts are false.
 
pilot padron said:
Sure I can:

1) Not being able to read minds as others here seem regularly able to do and then to dogmatically argue based on the results thereof, read this:

a) If the Defense (and Prosecution) was as inept and incompetent as you and others endlessly argue, you have answered your own question frequently in previous arguments, and additional requests from you now are superfluous.
b) Since the decision was unanimous, you know, the importance you attach to the simple question in your argument is in itself questionable,making your request irrelevant, redundant and unworthy of belaboring even here.
Especially again, in light of *your own* and others here repeated charges of Defense incompetency as the ever so obvious answer.

2) Certainly you and others are aware that a multitude of perpetrators are presently in prison primarily as a result of the circumstantial but ever so significant evidence of this undeniable inability to answer and *actual* proffering of outright easily refuted lies in replying to the 'Where were you' game changer.

Finally, the goalposts were embedded in the concrete foundation point of my post that *actual* contradictory answers were indeed very harmful to the Defense of the two perpetrators subsequently found unanimously to be guilty in a Court of Law.
I choose to resist movement now to your one ancillary playing field of the *one* contradiction you choose to now characteristically employ as a futile face saving argument to carry forward for 50,001
Click to expand...


So, in summary: no, you can't answer the question of why Sollecito's alleged statement about Knox's whereabouts from the November 5th interrogation was not introduced in the first trial. But instead, you choose to bluster about issues which did not actually address the question (including an astonishingly irrelevant extended passage about the fact that Knox and Sollecito were found guilty in the first trial).

Did I get that about right? Your attempts at arguments here are a waste of space. Take a Stint at answering the question next time, eh?
 
*2007-11-09 [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1568861/How-the-sex-game-went-wrong-Judges-report.html Telegraph]
On November 5 2007, at 22.40, Sollecito Raffaele was interviewed again, and he changed his version of events, saying that on the evening of November 1, after Meredith left the house, he was with Knox Amanda until 1800 when they had both left the apartment to go into the centre, around 2030 to 2100.
Knox left him, saying to him that she would go to the pub Le Chic to meet friends while he returned to his house, where he received a phone call from his father on his fixed line at 2300, and that he was using his computer for two hours while smoking a joint, and that the girl returned around 1am and that they both work up at 1000 when Amanda left the house to return to Via della Pergola.
He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct by say that it was Knox who convinced him to give a false version of events.​

This appears to be the sole source of the story that Amanda left at 2100. It's excerpts from Raffaele's November 5th statement released to the press.

We have contradicting evidence that proves this statement is inaccurate. The playing of Amelie, Amanda's reply to Patrick's text and Jovana Popovic talking to Amanda should remove any doubt that Amanda is at Raffaele's place that evening. There is no reason for Raffaele to create a lie to say they were in town when they were at home watching a movie. So why does this statement exist!?

I believe the statement is simply what the police believed at the time and Raffaele choose not to argue with them. Of key importance to the police was the cell tower connection when Amanda's phone received the text message from Patrick. This connection was to a cell in old town.

How can Amanda be watching a movie at Raffaele's place and connect to the cell in old town? SMS messages do not require the phone to find the best connection but will use whatever connection the phone already has. Amanda and Raffaele went through old town on the way back to his place. Amanda's phone registered with a cell in old town and still had that connection when the text from Patrick came through.


So why do those believing in guilt continue to pick the one cherry out of this discredited swill and claim that Raffaele says Amanda left??
 
bolint said:
LondonJohn:


Where did I ask it that way?
Click to expand...

Well, you didn't ask a direct question, but at that point in the debate about this statement of Sollecito's, you were making assertions such as these:


Even if he doesn't take the stand or give spontaneous statements to the court, he could give an explanation any time in a statement or open letter in which he faces, not avoids, the problems and obvious contradictions, untrue claims in his earlier statements.

Three years were enough only for making sporadic exclamations: "How surreal this is!"
Click to expand...

and

Well, even if Raffaele was caught in a maelstrom of sophisticated police gambits for a few hours and fell victim of erronous recollections, he could have easily corrected and explained these mistakes thereby demolishing the prosecution's case.
Click to expand...

and

But I don't see any reason why they could not explain their reasons for the public.
A simple, clean, sincere letter, approved by lawyers, would be much more effective then any PR firm's output.

If they are innocent, of course.

If they are not, then indeed the best option is what you recommend and what they do.
Click to expand...


So I was addressing these specific points raised by you (albeit not in the form of direct questions), by stating my views on why it would be inadvisable for Sollecito (or Knox) to make any kind of written or verbal pronouncements on this issue.

I had also previously given my views on why Sollecito might have said this stuff about Knox not being at his apartment between 9pm and 1am...


(By the way, if you want to reply to a post and place that post above your reply, simply press the "quote" button at the bottom right of the post you want to reply to. It will then automatically set up a reply to the post, with the post inserted at the top of your reply as a quote.)
 
Eh ??

LondonJohn said:
So, in summary: no, you can't answer the question of why Sollecito's alleged statement about Knox's whereabouts from the November 5th interrogation was not introduced in the first trial. But instead, you choose to bluster about issues which did not actually address the question (including an astonishingly irrelevant extended passage about the fact that Knox and Sollecito were found guilty in the first trial).

Did I get that about right? Your attempts at arguments here are a waste of space. Take a Stint at answering the question next time, eh?
Click to expand...

Oh Dear; are you alright?

1) Again, my answer (third time stated); your own clearly and repeatedly referenced claims of Defense Incompetence is certainly answer enough to your simple question is it not ? Eh ?

2) Isn't your surprising 'waste of space' remark really then applicable more to your own argument as well as being a characteristically borderline impolite closing insult to the arguer that you inadequately attempt to oppose ?
Eh??

PS:
For someone who has made a cottage industry of arguing by correcting spelling and grammar (only of opponents), help *us all here* to understand the communications engineering behind deliberate capitalization of 'Stint' in your argument when being used as conveying a period of time (again).
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
Oh Dear; are you alright?

1) Again, my answer (third time stated); your own clearly and repeatedly referenced claims of Defense Incompetence is certainly answer enough to your simple question is it not ? Eh ?

2) Isn't your surprising 'waste of space' remark really then applicable more to your own argument as well as being a characteristically borderline impolite closing insult to the arguer you inadequately attempt to oppose ?
Eh??
Click to expand...


I am fine thank you - and thanks for asking!

You were arguing that the statement was damning to the defence: either because it showed Sollecito to be some sort of liar, or because it showed that Sollecito had at one point placed Knox outside his apartment between 9pm and 1am.

Therefore, I'm not asking you why you thought the defence didn't introduce the statement. I'm asking you why you think the prosecution didn't introduce the statement.

I thought that was fairly clear. But obviously since I didn't go to agricultural college, I cannot analyse the situation on your plane of intelligence.....
 
pilot padron said:
PS:
For someone who has made a cottage industry of arguing by correcting spelling and grammar (only of opponents), help *us all here* to understand the communications engineering behind deliberate capitalization of 'Stint' in your argument when being used as conveying a period of time (again).
Click to expand...


Gosh, you're right! I've just checked, and I've mistakenly capitalised Stint 7 times over the past few weeks. It was a dreadful grammatical error, and I will try to ensure it doesn't happen again. After all, as you say, how can I point out grammatical or spelling errors to others if I make such stupid mistakes myself?!

By the way, it was terribly remiss of me not to return the compliment in my last post. So, belatedly, how are you?
 
What if Raffaele had not backed her up?

bolint said:
Yes. Matteini is the only source of a vague claim.
Raffaele then went on to spend 3 years in the jail, and he sat through the trial without repeating it.

He corrected the carabiniere call paradox, remembered the terrible experience of his barefoot prep walk, exchanged smiles and glances with Amanda, but for some reason he did not say "this brave young lady was always with me that night".

Why?
Click to expand...
Bolint,

Both Murder in Italy and Darkness Descending also describe Raffaele's backing up Amanda on this occasion. Suppose he had instead said, "No, she went out that evening." The shoe prints were not his. He might have been able to walk away from this case by doing so but did not. Why?
 
Please read it yet once again (4th try)

LondonJohn said:
I am fine thank you - and thanks for asking!

You were arguing that the statement was damning to the defence: either because it showed Sollecito to be some sort of liar, or because it showed that Sollecito had at one point placed Knox outside his apartment between 9pm and 1am.

Therefore, I'm not asking you why you thought the defence didn't introduce the statement. I'm asking you why you think the prosecution didn't introduce the statement.

I thought that was fairly clear. But obviously since I didn't go to agricultural college, I cannot analyse the situation on your plane of intelligence.....
Click to expand...



pilot padron said:
Sure I can:

1) Not being able to read minds as others here seem regularly able to do and then to dogmatically argue based on the results thereof, read this:

**a) If the Defense (and Prosecution) was as inept and incompetent as you and others endlessly argue,



you have answered your own question frequently in previous arguments, and additional requests from you now are superfluous.

I choose to resist movement now to your one ancillary playing field of the *one* contradiction you choose to now characteristically employ as a futile face saving argument to carry forward for 50,001
Click to expand...



**Did you per chance miss that even though your initial reply clearly quoted it ??
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
snip snap
Click to expand...

pilot, dear!

This is a terrible finding. Prosecution might really let the case out of their hands by overlooking it!

Hopefully not all is lost. Immediate and appropriate action is needed! Frogs and bunnies must mobilize once again in an epistolary outreach. This time straight to their spiritual leader - time for open letter to mignini :D
 
Katody Matrass said:
pilot, dear!

This is a terrible finding. Prosecution might really let the case out of their hands by overlooking it!

Hopefully not all is lost. Immediate and appropriate action is needed! Frogs and bunnies must mobilize once again in an epistolary outreach. This time straight to their spiritual leader - time for open letter to mignini :D
Click to expand...


:D

To be quite honest, I can't really be bothered to waste any more effort or electrons on this section of the debate. It seems quite obvious to me that one party is more concerned with personal confrontation than having a reasoned discussion about why this alleged statement was apparently not even introduced in Massei's court. I guess he will just have to make do with venting his ermm... issues...... elsewhere in cyberspace....
 
bolint said:
Yes.
The problem is what will they do if Guede happens to try tell the truth. :D
Click to expand...

If you mean by this a version in which he works together with AK and RS to rape and murder, then yes - it is a problem. Interestingly it is the same problem that we've postponed till Monday - a problem of presenting a sensible narrative not contradicting known factual findings. What would make it hard for Guede is that he's probably not so well versed in the details of AK and RS case as e.g. you or I. Would he know to avoid the pitfall of 21:26 media playback? Or to not contradict J. Popovic testimony?
 
Katody Matrass said:
If you mean by this a version in which he works together with AK and RS to rape and murder, then yes - it is a problem. Interestingly it is the same problem that we've postponed till Monday - a problem of presenting a sensible narrative not contradicting known factual findings. What would make it hard for Guede is that he's probably not so well versed in the details of AK and RS case as e.g. you or I. Would he know to avoid the pitfall of 21:26 media playback? Or to not contradict J. Popovic testimony?
Click to expand...


I still think that my original take on what might happen on Monday is the most likely scenario. I think that Guede will be asked whether he said to Alessi the things that Allessi (and the others) allege that he said. I think that Guede will answer in the negative.

I then think that Guede will be asked to explain what he said to Benedetti in the recorded Skype call. He will be asked why his opinion on Knox's/Sollecito's involvement appears to have changed so markedly between this Skype conversation and 2009. I think that this will be harder for him to answer coherently, especially as he definitely knew Knox by sight before the murder, and would almost certainly have been aware of Sollecito's physical appearance by the time he made the Skype call.

I don't therefore think that Monday will be a particularly revelatory day in Hellmann's court. I don't think that Guede will blow the case wide open by stating that Knox and Sollecito weren't there, but nor do I think he will make positive statements to the effect that they definitely were there and were the main protagonists. I am ready to be shown to be wrong in either direction though!
 
LondonJohn said:
I still think that my original take on what might happen on Monday is the most likely scenario. I think that Guede will be asked whether he said to Alessi the things that Allessi (and the others) allege that he said. I think that Guede will answer in the negative.

I then think that Guede will be asked to explain what he said to Benedetti in the recorded Skype call. He will be asked why his opinion on Knox's/Sollecito's involvement appears to have changed so markedly between this Skype conversation and 2009. I think that this will be harder for him to answer coherently, especially as he definitely knew Knox by sight before the murder, and would almost certainly have been aware of Sollecito's physical appearance by the time he made the Skype call.

I don't therefore think that Monday will be a particularly revelatory day in Hellmann's court. I don't think that Guede will blow the case wide open by stating that Knox and Sollecito weren't there, but nor do I think he will make positive statements to the effect that they definitely were there and were the main protagonists. I am ready to be shown to be wrong in either direction though!
Click to expand...

I think Hellmann is taking seriously his active role as for the inquisitorial system. He might ask Guede a few very direct questions about the murder. Not doing so would be neglecting his duty of an investigative judge.
Just my layman speculations - in a few days we'll know for sure.
 
LondonJohn said:
:D

To be quite honest, I can't really be bothered to waste any more effort or electrons on this section of the debate. It seems quite obvious to me that one party is more concerned with personal confrontation than having a reasoned discussion about why this alleged statement was apparently not even introduced in Massei's court. I guess he will just have to make do with venting his ermm... issues...... elsewhere in cyberspace....
Click to expand...

Characteristic debating tactic employed after one's argument was completely decimated as erroneous.
I am only too glad also to desist without gloating.

Matthew Best said:
Am I right in thinking that Pilot is now agreeing that the prosecution was incompetent? Even though they succeeded in wining a conviction?
Click to expand...

1) No your short argument is not correct.
Pilot said that L J answered his own question if *he believed* the Defense and Prosecution* to be incompetent, as he repeatedly previously posted.

2) The Prosecution succeeded in winning (sp) a unanimous *guilty verdict*
(without need for 'fermented juices').
Obviously, your team's coach need remind you also of the time honored but tired talking point of crucifying guilters when they dare say Knox and Sollecito were *convicted* at this stage of Appeal.
But surely you knew that.

Third person usage is a deliberate poster prerogative.
Therefore, save electrons expended to question same.
This to pacify L J's above concerns in his 'argument'
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
1) No your short argument is not correct.
Pilot said that L J answered his own question if *he believed* the Defense and Prosecution* to be incompetent, as he repeatedly previously posted.
Click to expand...

But his question was why you think the prosecution didn't introduce the statement, not why he thinks it. So you haven't answered the question at all.

If I ask you if you believe in the tooth fairy, and you point out that I don't believe in the tooth fairy, that's not really an answer to my question, is it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom